Marksworld: Multimedia Adventures of Mark Davistag:typepad.com,2003:weblog-866745313701127792012-06-01T17:24:38-05:00Just another vehicle for pointing people toward everything else I do in broadcast and print.TypePadNext week just got even more interestingtag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c0168ec00e2a8970c2012-06-01T17:24:38-05:002012-06-03T16:04:20-05:00As if a new show on a newly rebranded station is not exciting enough, I’m pleased to reveal that our time together will involve a little more than 7-10 a.m. locally on the new 660 AM The Answer (KSKY) in Dallas-Ft. Worth. On Fridays starting next week, I will begin...Mark Davis

As if a new show on a newly rebranded station is not exciting enough, I’m pleased to reveal that our time together will involve a little more than 7-10 a.m. locally on the new 660 AM The Answer (KSKY) in Dallas-Ft. Worth.

On Fridays starting next week, I will begin my day a little earlier, filling the Bill Bennett Morning in America time period 5 to 8 am Central on the Salem Radio Network. At eight, I will scurry from the second-floor network studios to my usual first-floor location for two local hours.

(If all of this works out well, maybe I can get them to spring for some kind of Batcave pole to slide down).

After listening to the thoughtful, provocative show Bill has done for eight years, it is a great honor to fill the Friday slot which has been filled by a variety of hosts over the years, including Rick Santorum, former RNC Chair Michael Steele, and most recently Bill’s talented colleague and former producer Seth Leibsohn.

They have all done a great job. I hope to bring whatever gifts I have into that time slot and take the nation into the weekend with the best I can offer.

I spoke to Bill today, and to his producer Chris Beach and to Operations Director Claude Jennings. All were more than gracious, and enthused to begin a new relationship. My gratitude cup has been overflowing for a while now, and more just poured out.

As we head into the weekend, I am poised and ready to spring into action 7 am Monday on the new AM 660 The Answer (KSKY) for everyone in my Dallas-Ft. Worth listener family. Now I have 5 am CT Fridays to look forward to, and I hope you look forward to it as well.

I have never been more mindful of the blessings from God that I do not deserve, and the blessings of support from the public that I will do my utmost to deserve in every way.

Have a great weekend, everybody, I may weigh in over the weekend with some thoughts about where we’ve been and where we’re going.

Wherever you’re going, be safe, be thankful and be mindful of how lucky we all are as Americans.

Talk to you Monday morning!

...And a door openstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c0168ebda6c90970c2012-05-27T20:15:25-05:002012-05-27T20:15:25-05:00For several weeks now, the question has swirled around me: Where will you go? What will you do? Where will the story line that led me out of WBAP lead next? I have not said a word, partially because there were a number of options to pursue, and then once...Mark Davis

For several weeks now, the question has swirled around me: Where will you go? What will you do? Where will the story line that led me out of WBAP lead next?

I have not said a word, partially because there were a number of options to pursue, and then once the best option was obvious, confidentiality was vital.

Well, the deal is done, and we are back on the radio together on Monday morning, June 4. For weeks I have said and written much about how special the host/listener relationship is, and I have been blessed to find people willing to show that relationship the respect it deserves.

It will be my joy on that day to walk into the studios of Salem Communications’ KSKY (AM 660) to resume what I have done for 30 years, 18 of them here in North Texas-- sharing thoughts with listeners about things we all care about.

The show will air in a spectacular time slot-- 7 to 10 a.m., meaning I will still enjoy the midmorning audience I’ve always had, in addition to meeting earlier listeners I’ve never had the pleasure of speaking with.

You know I have about a thousand things to share about this new adventure-- some sweeping and profound, others merely details of how this all came about and what it will all be like.

But there is an order to things. My new employers want to issue a release for the industry trades, and that will happen by the time the work week dawns on Tuesday. They have been gracious enough to let me hit the personal blog button to share these words today, because as briefly as we’ve known each other, they already recognized my head was about to explode.

I wanted to be here as early as possible for the people who have read my updates and my constant assertions that we would be together again, somewhere.

Now I know where that somewhere is. And even though I’ve only known these people a short while, I will tell you they are cut from very special cloth. The station as a whole, with a full schedule of shows you are probably well familiar with, deserves your support. As you join me in partnering with them, it is good to know that there is a company that will still do what it takes to nurture a full schedule of shows devoted to issues that matter, and devoted to the community where we all live and work.

Producer Susan Cloud will be joining me, so the show will hit the ground running with a familiar energy that will make our adventure even more special.

Much, much more to come, but I am beyond thrilled to be able to finally say: Vacation over, everybody. I’m going back to work.

Idol Finaletag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c0168ebb46c8f970c2012-05-22T23:02:16-05:002012-05-22T23:02:16-05:00Here’s the bottom line as we hit the finish line for this season: Where does the Joshua vote go? If his fans were a pop-loving crowd of teenage girls, they go straight to Jessica. If they were a deeper, more eclectic bunch, Phillip could score some of them. But let’s...Mark Davis

Here’s the bottom line as we hit the finish line for this season: Where does the Joshua vote go? If his fans were a pop-loving crowd of teenage girls, they go straight to Jessica. If they were a deeper, more eclectic bunch, Phillip could score some of them. But let’s see how they do.

He begins by saddling JESSICA with a predictable, treacly Whitney Houston anthem. Was she good? Of course. Was it special? Not in the least.

Bolstering his affinity for shopworn classics, Fuller shackles PHILLIP with “Stand By Me,” equally robbing him of a chance to shine. First round to Jessica, and it’s not even Phillip’s fault.

Compounding frustrations, somebody made the genius decision to essentially nuke the judging, allowing only vague platitudes after each entire round. This show should be peaking with unforgettable moments. Instead it is dragged down by bad programming decisions.

Second round, the finalists get to pick their favorite.

JESSICA could have picked a lot of songs. Bold move to pick “The Prayer,” turning it into a fresher piece of work than Andrea Bocelli, Celine Dion and maybe even Josh Groban did. Very, very nice.

PHILLIP needed a special moment for his chosen song, and did not get it with Billy Joel’s “Movin’ Out.” It was just the Phillip formula of standing there with the guitar, which is fine, it’s what got him this far. But once again, not special.

Now we get the sucky songs the writers have crafted for the eventual winner’s first single.

JESSICA gets “Change Nothing,” a boring piece of pop fluff that did her no favors. Much love to the judges for faulting the show for picking such a weak song for her powerful voice.

So imagine my surprise as PHIL is given the gift of a fairly decent song and even some drummers and background singers. “Home” was actually fairly memorable. And with this moment, he may have won this thing.

A third problem round for Phil, and I would have been officially scared. But as it is, with his entire season without an appearance in the Bottom 3, and this strong finish, I’m going to very cautiously suggest he wins the season.

Idol Top 3tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c0167668d5030970b2012-05-16T22:20:41-05:002012-05-16T22:20:41-05:00Going in, here’s the dynamic as I see it. The final needs to be Joshua and Phillip. Not because Jessica is a lesser talent-- she may be one of the finest technical singers in the show’s history. But the guys have something going for them that she does not-- they...Mark Davis

Going in, here’s the dynamic as I see it. The final needs to be Joshua and Phillip. Not because Jessica is a lesser talent-- she may be one of the finest technical singers in the show’s history. But the guys have something going for them that she does not-- they are interesting when they are not singing. Phil is just an indie slacker-looking guy with an unassuming air about him, while Josh is over-the-top foppish and expressive. I figure that will make the difference to vault them to next week.

First round, songs picked by the judges.

JOSHUA rolls out with “I Would Rather Go Blind,” sung by Etta James in 1968 and Rod Stewart (among others) thereafter. It was another superb song choice and another home run performance. He has a mastery of stage presence very few have achieved in this show. The only question is how much it resonates with the voting audience.

JESSICA takes her first step toward the door with exactly the kind of song that does her no favors at all. Wrapping her with dreck from Mariah Carey just makes her look like a cute kid who can sing really nice.

PHIL once again tackles the challenge of an unfamiliar song by an unfamiliar artist. “Beggin’ was a Four Seasons record, but the modern incarnation is from a Norwegian hip-hop act called Madcon. Doesn’t matter. In Phil’s hands, it’s a Phil song, and if America is digging what he does, he will win this thing.

Second round, songs the contestants pick.

JOSH’s hometown trip just reinforced my complete 180 with him. Five weeks ago, he annoyed the hell out of me. Now he strikes me as a fine young man with a great family from a great background and a personality that is actually growing on me. That said, his choice of “Imagine” just didn’t click. It’s not his age. It wasn’t a great arrangement, and it took me back to when David Archuleta nailed this song in Season 7.

(Pause button. It also annoys me when people glom onto this song like it is uplifting. It is undoubtedly beautiful, but “Imagine there’s no heaven?” “No possessions?” “No country?” “Nothing to kill or die for?” What a nihilistic, socialist, defeatist crap concept. And I love Lennon and the Beatles. But come on.)

JESSICA benefits from a trip home to a town with more than 5,000 people in it. Nice angle with the military Dad and the rousing welcome, but I’m just not feelin’ it. Nor did I feel it as she paraded “I Don’t Want To Miss a Thing” right in front of Steven Tyler. Very, very ordinary.

I loved PHIL’s hometown trip as much as I love Phil. Great family, great reception, great humility. But not a great selection with an obscure Matchbox 20 record, “Disease.” Judges are right, he can do this kind of easy bouncy thing in his sleep. He needs a big third tune.

Third round, Jimmy Iovine picks.

For JOSHUA, he serves up “No More Drama” from Mary J. Blige, which should work in theory because Josh is as big a diva as she is. But theory is one thing, the performance is another. It was big, showy and dramatic like everything Josh does. But it left me lukewarm. He is much better on stylish old classics. Two less than stellar songs from him, this could get tense. Judges’ overpraise is out of control here.

Jimmy offers Jessica the Jackson 5’s “I’ll Be There,” which seems like genius. A young sounding song that will appeal to older voters, too. Ten seconds in, I knew it was a great idea. And when she did the lower octave verse as well as Michael’s, she showcased her entire package-- youthful energy but timeless skill.

“We’ve Got Tonight” is an interesting challenge for PHIL. I was thinking I would have picked another, less schmaltzy Seger record. But what do I know? Randy is right. This was the best performance of the year by one of the most interesting artists in Idol history.

SO NOW WHAT? Jessica has to go. She’s a great kid and an amazing talent, but Phil and Josh just have so much more in their respective bags. So get it right, America. Give us the Final we deserve.

Settling gay marriagetag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c0168eb7ff3dd970c2012-05-14T16:13:04-05:002012-05-14T16:13:04-05:00Divisive issues can be challenging enough when all sides fire away from their respective corners. But when an issue is largely miscast and ill-defined, things get absurdly messy. On the issue of gay marriage, I’m going to define what the issue is, and what it is not, and then settle...Mark Davis

Divisive issues can be challenging enough when all sides fire away from their respective corners.

But when an issue is largely miscast and ill-defined, things get absurdly messy. On the issue of gay marriage, I’m going to define what the issue is, and what it is not, and then settle it right here.

First, to the language. President Obama himself, who did us the favor last week of finally telling us the truth about his feelings on the issue, lends to its misdefinition by saying he believes “same-sex couples should have the right to marry.”

To the President, and to anyone similarly foggy on this: Gays can marry today, anywhere they wish. They may secure a hall and an officiant, hire a band, lay out a buffet and get married right now, wherever they wish.

The only question is whether those marriages will be granted the same legal status as heterosexual marriages.

Sloppy usage like this, plus the unforgivable use of the term “gay marriage ban” conjures images of cops banging on church doors rousting out those inside amid bullhorn shouts: “You’d better not have two people of the same sex getting married in there!”

This does not happen. It will never happen. The miscasting of the gay marriage issue stems from the failure of nearly everyone to recognize that marriage has three components:

It has a religious component. A marriage may carry a heavy faith significance or none. That is no one’s business but the happy couple’s.

It has a social component. This is the recognition by friends, family and society at large that the couple is indeed married and thus the permanence of their union is recognized and appreciated. This is also not the business of the public at large, only the loved ones of those who marry.

The component of marriage that is everybody’s business is the legal portion-- the question of which marriages will be recognized and which will not, granting or denying the various benefits that come from marriage in areas like the tax code, estate laws, property rights and others.

The nation’s founders were visionary, but surely they never imagined Americans would seriously argue for marriages between two men or two women to be regarded as the equal of the marriages that have underpinned society nearly forever. As such, the Constitution is silent on the matter.

This is vital to understand when people assert that the craftily titled concept of “marriage equality” is a right. On what basis? There is no foundation for that claim in the Constitution, and surely no argument for it as a moral right as defined in any mainstream religion.

Something does not become a right simply because people are passionate about it. I am passionate that restaurants should be able to enact their own smoking rules, but I recognize it is not a right.

The Constitution requires that matters unspecifically addressed in its text are left to the states and to the people. This means every state can make its own gay marriage laws. Liberal states may grant legal equality to gay unions, conservative states may reserve that unique status to man/woman marriages.

Both decisions pass constitutional muster, and President Obama is right-- if he is truthful-- about wanting this as a matter for the states and not federal edict.

So the individual states are the proper battleground for which marriages to legally recognize, keeping in mind that gays are free to marry everywhere, and those marriages are equally sound in the religious and social sense, both of which would seem to mightily outweigh the legal technicalities.

Think of your own marriage. What makes it sacred and special? For most, it is the vows made before God, followed closely by the status of “married” as recognized and lifted up by friends, family and the community.

The “piece of paper,” as it is so often called, is a distant third. There, is, in fact, a libertarian argument that government should have no role in marriage whatsoever.

But as long as it does, gays and those who fight for their rights will focus on legal equanimity for a variety of reasons.

Establishing an identical status for gay marriage is a step toward establishing identical status in the public mind for homosexuality and heterosexuality, the so-called “legitimization” battle. For the record, gayness does not alter my regard for any man or woman, and my embrace of Christian teaching on this issue will never lead to any scolding disregard from me for any gay couple. I will occupy my time keeping myself as free of sin as I can rather than obsessing about the activities of others.

The fight for legal equality is also powered by various practicalities-- hospital visitations, rights of inheritance and the like. Basic human decency should lead us all to confer those prerogatives, without the necessity of sacrificing the definition of marriage based on the laws and values of centuries of human existence.

But winning this argument requires acknowledging the sincere questions and concerns of gay marriage equality advocates. So let’s address their questions and claims respectfully, one by one:

What harm is there in granting gay marriages legal equality?

This is a very good question, made better by the fact that it does not involve some instant demonstrable, tangible negative. The economy does not falter, we don’t lose the war, the Earth does not spin out of its orbit.

The argument is based on principle and possible future dangers. The most valuable principle is the vital need to fight the equalization of the genders, to maintain the special recognition of the glories of manhood and womanhood.

To fight for equal rights or equal pay is one thing. To assert that man and woman are in fact the same thing, a distinction without meaning, is a ruinous road to travel.

Legal equality for gay marriages means the law would say it is the same for me to marry a man as to marry a woman. If a equals b and a equals c, then b equals c. Thus it is the law saying manhood and womanhood are statuses undeserving of distinction from each other.

This is the basis for protecting women from the draft, as well as a slew of laws that properly recognize some women’s workplace rights and protections that liberals and conservatives agree on. You want a war on women? Legal equality for gay marriage strips women of the logic to assert certain stances that have served them well throughout history, all due to the law recognizing that men and women are citizens of equal stature, but are most decidedly not the exact same thing.

Remember one of the dumbest stories of the last ten years, some guy or group of guys who asserted the right to be Hooters waitresses? This was properly hooted out of court because they have the right to hire women for those posts, and not just any women at that. They have the liberty to hire those whom they feel help their business.

That kind of liberty, as well as others far more substantive, vanish when law obliterates the differences between men and women.

The worst effect is to negate the difference between mothers and fathers. This extends to adoption policies, where what was once a basic understanding is now a debate flashpoint: that the best place for an adopted child is with a married man and woman.

This basic fact, once as accepted as the sun rising in the east, now draws fire, as it did in a recent speaking engagement of mine.

In an energetic room full of diverse participants-- my favorite environment-- that suggestion nearly drew gasps as I got pushback on the basis that favoring married hetero couples for adoption was unenlightened and just plain mean.

It required a nuanced parry. I am well aware, I told them, that single Moms, single Dads and gay couples of both sexes are capable of good child-rearing. Some in those groups, driven by urgency, gratitude or both, constitute some particularly exemplary parenting examples. Conversely, there are plenty of married men and woman who are absolutely horrible parents.

But that does not negate a basic truth: the ideal for a child is to have a mother and a father, under the same roof, committed by marriage. Anything less is a retreat from that ideal.

And I will not retreat.

The dynamic has come to this: it has become an article of empathy to equate gay and hetero marriage. To fail to do so has become evidence of homophobia or socially neanderthal thinking. This is a masterstroke of opinion manipulation by gay rights advocates, taking advantage of every opportunity to characterize opponents as bigots.

I do not have a homophobic drop of blood in my veins. Conservatives simply must make the argument on constructive principle, and stop relying on some tactics that have never been helpful:

-- the notion that the mere existence of gay marriage makes it harder for others to honor traditional marriages.

-- the notion that gay marriage is a scourge that presents some palpable danger to those around it. Gay marriage is better than gay promiscuity.

-- and here’s the tricky one: the notion that we need a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman.

While I would not lament its passage, there are two reasons why this is not helpful right now. First, the country is not sufficiently with us and it would fail the properly high bar for amendments to succeed. Leaving this to the states honors the Constitution, and as state after state says no to “marriage equality,” the battle is thus won so far already.

Second, I do not look to the Constitution as a personal behavioral guide. It is a blueprint for a strong but limited government, a roadmap of what that government can and cannot do. I have never needed it to contain amendments saying we must do this or must not do that. This is what legislatures are for.

There are various ways to couch opposition to gay marriage equality in a way that can pry away the default settings of those who have consumed the Kool-Aid that it is cruel to deny it.

One is to play the polygamy card.

It seems a stretch at first to say gay marriage equality makes it hard to prevent polygamy, but it is undeniably true because the arguments are the same. Why deny multiple marriages if the love is real, everyone is consenting and polygamists are made to feel like inferior citizens if they are denied?

I would suggest that multiple heterosexual marriages is less jarring to the existing norms than same-sex unions. But until the polygamy lobby can sculpt its wishes into a civil right, they will be denied the normalization of their passions.

But one deviation from the logic granting unique status to heterosexual marriages is an invitation to court cases seeking others. And on what basis will they be denied if the petitioners are sincere in their quest? A sincere wish to prevail is all gay marriage advocates have going for them, and they are making progress in the courts and in public opinion.

So without any ill will toward gays, without regard to any opinion we may have about homosexuality in general, let those of us who seek to protect the singular legal definition of marriage move forward unbowed by those who would falsely brand us as haters.

Idol Top 4: Choices Get Clearertag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c016766605f82970b2012-05-09T23:35:16-05:002012-05-09T23:35:16-05:00PREVIOUSLY: So Skylar’s fans did NOT revive her and she’s gone. This week the question is, can Hollie stay good enough to keep herself alive? PHILLIP kicks off the weird “California” premise (songs by people from California or about California or something, whatever) with CCR”S “Have You Ever Seen the...Mark Davis

PREVIOUSLY: So Skylar’s fans did NOT revive her and she’s gone. This week the question is, can Hollie stay good enough to keep herself alive?

PHILLIP kicks off the weird “California” premise (songs by people from California or about California or something, whatever) with CCR”S “Have You Ever Seen the Rain?” It was good-- Phil always is-- but it did not showcase his gifts. Solid B, but that’s about it.

HOLLIE needs to be superb to stay alive, and her treatment of Journey’s “Faithfully” gives us another glimpse of the phenomenon I call Judge Deafness Syndrome, or The Producers Are Making Them Say Everyone is Good Syndrome. Come on. Run it back on your DVR. This was thoroughly ordinary. But the judges gushed without reservation-- and without basis. They are crazy. Not good. Hollie is in trouble.

Okay, if I’ve come around on JOSHUA and he tackles one of the best Josh Groban records, my expectations are sky high. Well, they were not met on “You Raise Me Up.” It was good, no great flaws, but it didn’t seem to pack the emotion of Groban. Maybe no one could do that. Another solid B.

JESSICA is always going to be one of the best technical singers of any night. But if you had told me she would pick a courageous song and deliver a performance more compelling than anyone else’s, I would have scoffed. But that’s exactly what she did. Best by her so far and best of the first round as she delivered Etta James’ “Steal Away” with a power and authority that is just ridiculous for a 16-year-old. If she keeps this up, the Phil/Joshua final may not be in concrete just yet.

DUET GIMMICK BREAK. Gotta fill two hours somehow. Phil and Josh knock out Maroon 5’s “This Love,” and they were just fine. Better for Josh stylistically-- he should work some more M5 before this thing is done, maybe “Harder to Breathe” or “She Will Be Loved.”

And for the ladies, Jessica and Hollie fight their way through the Bangles’”Eternal Flame.” It was kind of a mess, but the song is so pretty and they are so cute I didn’t really care and it doesn’t really matter.

Oh, Lord, now we have to have all FOUR of them do a song? Jeez, just make the show 90 minutes or something. It didn’t help that it was weak. “Waiting for a Girl Like You” was a total waste of time.

Finally, Round 2. There is a fairly solid Idol rule: Don’t do unfamiliar songs by unfamiliar artists. I mean, who has heard of Ireland’s Damien Rice, or his largely Euro hit “Volcano” from 2003? Only the most remarkable of artists can make that work. Well, that’s what PHILLIP is. This was simply magnificent. Acoustic, quiet, subtle and a total home run.

The improvements continue as HOLLIE does justice to Bonnie Raitt’s “I Can’t Make You Love Me.” She needs to do more like this-- non-diva ballads that allow her to showcase her vocal power. No Celine or Whitney, but maybe things like Linda Ronstadt’s “Love Has No Pride.” Reverse of last time-- I liked it, judges didn’t.

Now HERE’s the JOSHUA I have come to appreciate. James Brown’s “Man’s Man’s Man’s World” was just perfect for him, and just perfectly delivered by him. The power and passion were beyond anything seen this year, maybe any year. Wow.

JESSICA hoped to keep the goosebumps going with “I Am Telling You I’m Not Going.” Big challenge. And she met it with room to spare. Another remarkable performance. The two best songs were the second ones by Philip and Joshua, but Jessica actually had the most consistent night.

We’re done with Bottom 3’s even Bottom 2’s. It’s just goodbye time, and she’s been adorable and really great, but HOLLIE is clearly not quite in the same league as her three rivals.

A stroll through 18 yearstag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c0168eb5f61d0970c2012-05-09T16:54:48-05:002012-05-09T16:54:48-05:00Ethan's first studio visit, September 2003 The days since Friday have been filled with the kind wishes of listeners who absorbed as I did the news that WBAP’s new owners were going “in a different direction.” I have sought to soothe the disillusioned reactions with the promise that I will...Mark Davis

Ethan's first studio visit, September 2003

The days since Friday have been filled with the kind wishes of listeners who absorbed as I did the news that WBAP’s new owners were going “in a different direction.”

I have sought to soothe the disillusioned reactions with the promise that I will have news to share soon about where I will appear next.

I also continue to enjoy, even cherish, the unstructured but busy days this has given me, filled with additional family time, writing time and time to get the new puppy to poop outside.

I’ve also had time to let the memories of 18 years settle onto the horizon through my rear-view mirror. I mentioned in my last post that the station I left doesn’t seem the same, with new owners and a new Dallas location.

But obviously it is the same in many respects, the human respects, the people who are still there, and for whom I wish nothing but the best.

My thoughts run to them often these days, as I run through a slide show of half of my adult life at one radio station.

I rarely tell jokes, so heaven knows I am not one to invent them. But I am proud of this one: What do they call you after 18 years at WBAP? The new guy.

This is a reference to folks like Hal Jay and Steve Lamb, who have been at that frequency far longer, as were legends like Bill Mack, Don Day and Don Harris, whose careers stretch back over the decades of BAP as a country music pillar.

My memory pages begin to turn with the day in Spring 1994 when I took over in a daypart that had been occupied by Don Harris, whose years of service had earned him the kind of listener loyalty I have only now begun to feel.

As BAP made the transition from country to talk, adding Rush Limbaugh in the afternoon, new programming manager Tyler Cox was smart enough to keep the local personalities the market knew and loved, tasking them with doing things other than playing Reba McEntire records.

Hal Jay transitioned into a news/talk morning show host along with partner Dick Siegel, an adjustment less jarring because they were only playing a few songs per show anyway, what with the heavy commitments to news, weather, sports and other services, and the magnificent moments of prepared comedy, with bits like Sam From Sales and Willie Landum, Fishing Guide to the Stars.

(Those segments grew in scope and type and personnel, peaking a few years ago before they were discontinued, a move listeners still hate, and rightfully so. More on that later.)

Harris and other longtime DJs faced a stiffer challenge-- do a whole talk show. It is not that “Harris and Company,” as it had been tentatively titled, did not work. It had the same easy affability as Don’s shows over the years playing music. But the decision was made that if BAP was to be a talk station, it had to go find talk show guys. That was what led to my hiring, and the day I walked into the lobby on Broadcast Hill in East Fort Worth to “fill in” for Don in February 1994.

I was not really auditioning. Tyler had purposefully called me after two years together at WWRC in Washington, DC, where I still was.

He had come to DC in early 1990 after stints in Boston and Sacramento (where he was briefly the Program Director at KFBK for a local show hosted by a guy named Rush Limbaugh). When mighty ABC called and asked him to come pilot the transition of its major Dallas-Ft Worth property into the talk format, he could not refuse. When he asked me to come with him, I declined.

I was on a station with middling ratings (up against WMAL, another monster ABC station with Rush in middays), but I was back in my hometown after hosting shows in Jacksonville and Memphis.

Regina was just a baby, and after all, I was doing a talk show in the nation’s capital. Under Tyler’s guidance, we had come close (okay, fairly close) to WMAL’s numbers. I did not want to move.

I was, of course, an idiot. Washington is a terrible market for local talk. While North Texas latches onto great topics no matter where they occur, DC, Maryland and Virginia could not care less about each other. I toiled away for another year and a half, until a day when the Radio Gods smiled on me with a second opportunity to come to Texas.

I had learned that there was wisdom in leaving a station laboring in the shadow of an ABC property with Limbaugh, for the chance to join an ABC property with Limbaugh.

So I sat down for two shows at WBAP, just to get the feel of the studio, the programming clock, the staff. Proving that the Radio Gods also have a sense of humor, they saw to it that this lifelong Washington Redskins fan got to anchor coverage of an entire Dallas Cowboys Super Bowl parade.

I have since managed to reconcile my NFL passions. Nothing can erase my memories of growing up at RFK Stadium watching Sonny Jurgensen, Charley Taylor and Diron Talbert. But my bread has been buttered here for two decades, and I have found room in my heart to join my listeners in rooting for the Cowboys, the nemesis of my youth.

Those listeners got their first dose of me as permanent host on March 28, 1994. I had been on the payroll since March 21, given a week to do nothing but listen to other shows, among them David Gold and Kevin McCarthy on KLIF. Longtime local favorite Jody Dean was also given a show on KRLD. There was a lot of local talk to go around, and it was a joy to be counted among the fraternity of these good and talented people.

It was clear WBAP was going to do this talk thing right, spending the money necessary to do memorable shows. In my third year, I was off to Chicago for the re-nomination convention of Bill Clinton, and to San Diego for the well-meaning but ultimately futile anointment of Bob Dole.

It was at that 1996 Republican convention that I ran into a number of North Texans who gave me the first inkling that something special was under construction.

As the nineties ebbed, I enjoyed additional years of a growing fan base and a growing bond with the people who were in it. If listeners and I were growing close in those years, the unforgettable drama of the 2000 election fused us together inseparably.

In that year, we had logged more great convention shows, with George W. Bush in Philadelphia and Al Gore in Los Angeles. We had traveled to Iowa and New Hampshire, where the races all began, an exercise I’ve maintained ever since. A year after the snows of New England, I watched the snow fall on the Bush inaugural, covering the event from the reviewing stand on Pennsylvania Avenue, a broadcasting dream come true.

Since inaugurations are in Washington and the new President was from Texas, the idea blossomed of joint coverage simulcast on WBAP and WMAL in DC. I co-anchored that coverage with a man I had listened to as a teenager, the great Chris Core.

Eight months later, the world changed and the Radio Gods had their way with me again, arranging for me to be in Mexico on 9/11, the day of the biggest story of any modern life.

Planes were silent but phones obviously still worked, and I was on the air at BAP sharing thoughts about the events in general and describing the reactions of fellow Americans similarly stranded in the Yucatan as smoke still rose from Ground Zero.

WBAP, like most talk stations, ran wall-to-wall news coverage for most of the rest of the week. There would have been only one talk show for me to do, probably Friday, September 14. I never got to do it. I was back the following Monday for a broadcast with my colleagues at Grapevine Mills Mall raising money for various charities serving victims.

In a larger sense, I will never know what it was like to actually be in America on 9/11. Sure, I’ve heard a million stories from Texans, Floridians, Oregonians and most notably New Yorkers about what that day was like for them, but I will never have a personal story about what it felt like to stand on the soil of my country as it was attacked.

But I’ll tell you what I have that few others have: a memory of returning to a nation forever changed.

We had flown to Mexico on a charter that had stopped to pick up some folks from Houston on the way to Cancun. (By the way, you can have Cancun. Head down the coast to more placid Playa del Carmen.) We stopped to drop them off before returning to D/FW.

Landing in Houston puts your plane pretty close to the ground as land appears under you. I will never forget the anticipation of seeing the Texas coastline, knowing I was looking down on a country newly at war.

The issues stemming from 9/11 and the war occupied a properly large percentage of the shows I have done ever since. Sprinkled throughout, though were the great trips for political travel that broadened the topical base. In 2004, the Bush renomination in New York, and the Kerry convention in Boston (where we heard a keynote speech from Senate candidate Barack Obama). In 2008, the McCain-Palin drama in St. Paul and the Barackalypse in Denver. And, of course, I am freshly back from this year’s Iowa and New Hampshire coverage, where I found a candidate and a friend in Rick Santorum.

I am not generally a fan of shows outside the nurturing womb of my studio. I like my room. It has the TVs, the computers, the access to audio and the familiarity I crave for maximum comfort, which leads to the best radio.

Thank God I did not work for people who gave in to pressure from clients to whore out shows to attract people to the spectacle of broadcasting. I love public appearances, apart from the actual show, but I do not need to be talking about partial birth abortion on the air in the middle of a hardware store in Duncanville.

But I loved the political trips, which plopped me into the middle of huge breaking news, surrounded by other people doing their shows from all over the country.

And there was another type of out-of-studio broadcasting I came to love.

When I started at BAP in March ’94, I was told to get ready for September, and three weeks of outdoor shows at the State Fair of Texas.

It was everything that makes outdoor talk shows problematic: loud, distracting and technically challenging. And I loved every minute of it.

Each show began amid the cool of autumn and the quiet of Fair Park before the gates were open. People would stream in at ten, and by eleven, I was talking over-- and with-- kids, parents, grandparents, farmers, ranchers, carnies and anybody who had come by to plug some product or service. I managed to shoehorn real topics into that crazy circus, and it was magical. Like the Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo broadcasts each winter, it was a chance for an extended, daily handshake and hug with the people who had been kind enough to welcome me onto their radios and into their lives.

As the years brought an additional bond with listeners, they also gave me additional family members. I am an only child, but my Radio Family makes the Waltons’ mountain shack look deserted.

Meeting and getting to know and love Hal Jay and Steve Lamb are the gifts of a career and a lifetime. And as for that only child business, I may have to revise that, as Rick Hadley and Sean Chastain are the brothers I never technically had.

Watching Rick grow professionally but shrink personally has been a nonstop adventure. The fairly obese news kid I met in ’94 is now the chiseled and seasoned News Director of WBAP and KLIF, a path he has walked to the soundtrack of the ear-pummeling metal he can’t shake his love for. I have loved walking that path with him, as a friend and co-worker.

Sean is very simply the funniest person ever born. Okay, we’ll split that honor with Hal for decades of on-air comedy, but the things Sean has written for that morning show plus countless asides and moments of found comedy in our shared adventures have given me the loudest laughs of my life. Coupled with the years of love and support, I am forever blessed to know him.

And as friends do, I will now throw him under the bus with a story he will tell only if you make him. Sean’s humor is from his brain to his mouth as situations warrant. It is as reliable as sunrise, but not as predictable. He is not a trained seal. His genius springs from moments of inspiration, whenever they occur.

That means a chance to meet one of his idols quickly turned from memorable to torturous. In 2002, Dick Armey was wrapping up 18 years in Congress, nearly half as House Majority leader. I was the MC of an event in his honor in Dallas, heavy with high-caliber guests, among them Ben Stein, whose wit and insights have delighted me for years.

Understand that if I love Ben Stein, Sean Loves. Ben. Stein. So I introduce them and herald Sean as the gifted guy who writes most of the morning comedy segments on WBAP.

I can see the blood drain from Sean’s face and hear his stomach tighten into a thick knot. All he would want is for Ben to hear the superb lines he had written that morning for Mystic Chuck or Breakfast With Betty or Fake Andy Rooney. But in that moment I don’t know if Sean could have remembered his home address. I clumsily sought to explain the nuance of Sean’s gift to Ben, but the moment had passed and off he walked, in a gray suit and sneakers, carrying a large briefcase stuffed with papers and medicine bottles.

This still eats at Sean, but all he has done in the meantime is provide years of laughs for morning listeners through his writing, and years of joy to me through his friendship.

Now to those morning bits, which the familiar will remember with fond nostalgia, and the unfamiliar will have no idea about.

When I arrived, board operator John Hanson provided Hal and Dick with some character voices they turned into brutally funny radio segments, usually written moments before they were performed, adding to their urgently timely brilliance. When Sean took over as board op, he also added his writing to these segments, which grew to include a slew of new characters featuring the voice of Eric Harley, who is now paired with Gary Mcnamara on the rapidly growing Red Eye Radio syndicated overnight show.

There is no doubt that writing and performing these gems tapped into the focus and energy of other morning show elements, to say nothing of the minutes of tearful laughter that would usually take up even more time. On the premise that Hal and the morning show would be better served by dumping these segments and sticking to the lion’s share of what the morning show does-- news, services, interview segments-- the comedy bits were discontinued.

This was a horrible idea, and it remains horrible to this day.

Every station provides content of a certain sort. You always want your station to do it better, and WBAP usually did, whether news, weather, sports or interviews. But if you have an opportunity through Hal’s extemporaneous sense of humor, Sean’s writing gift and Eric or John’s voice talents, to create moments that would be talked about for days, sometimes years, that is an opportunity to be unique and memorable and it should never have been sacrificed just so we could get in one more segment that sounded much like every other segment, good as they are.

But, I don’t program shows, I just do them. All I have control over is my own on-air world, which has contained more wonderful people than I could name here, from the sales folks who have made me a commercial fixture in many places to the staff I have shared a building with, the newspeople who have provided such a stellar product that I have used as a launching point for so many topics, and the producers who have assembled shows for me and taken your calls over the years-- from Julie Van Dielen to Lisa Hinson to my friend forever Jeff Williams (who is still obligated to go back to Israel with me whenever I go), to the all-too-brief era of Susan Cloud, who brought not just practical skill but an unmatched personal appeal to her first radio producing gig ever.

Okay, enough. I could go on, but it’s time to focus on that next show, which I will share more about when it is time. But I didn’t want to walk through that next door without sharing a little about the amazing journey at WBAP, the images of which will stay with me no matter what ownership clutches the station finds itself in as the years pass. Employees, formats, business plans can all blow away like leaves in the wind, but radio memories are forever. I will soon make more.

===============

The Radio Family with Sean Hannity at the 2010 Hannity concert. Sean is flanked by the First Couple of Traffic, Laura Houston and Monty Cook. Beside Laura is Steve Lamb, beside Monty is news anchor Amy Chodroff. The back row, L to R: Rick Hadley, me, Sean Chastain in the shadow, Hal Jay, morning co-host Brian Estridge.

tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c0167665cd35a970b2012-05-09T15:34:20-05:002012-05-09T15:34:20-05:00Romney's rise brings attention to Mormonism and a battle over the language Mark Davis Published: 08 May 2012 11:08 PM Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be excused if they wince upon hearing from non-Mormons how nice they are. That faint praise is often followed...Mark Davis

Romney's rise brings attention to Mormonism and a battle over the language

Mark Davis

Published: 08 May 2012 11:08 PM

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be excused if they wince upon hearing from non-Mormons how nice they are. That faint praise is often followed by criticism, some of it ill-informed.

As the stage is set for the possibility (I’d be happy to say likelihood) of our first Mormon president, unprecedented attention will be paid to the LDS faith, which brings positives and negatives.

The positives include a lesson millions of Americans will get in what Mormons do and do not believe. There was some attention directed at this in 2008, when Mitt Romney was a strong candidate. But as the actual Republican nominee, he will usher his faith into an unprecedented spotlight, as millions ask questions about a religion they may have no familiarity with.

Learning is inherently good, but with it comes a tug-of-war, as competing interests rush into the vacuum to score points.

Much has been made of some faction of fundamentalist Christians who seek to denigrate Mormonism as a cult. This may be the most exaggerated slice of the American population since activist Mitch Snyder’s 6-million-homeless scam.

Do some people express disregard for Mormons? Sure, as there are those who speak ill of other faiths for reasons of mere “differentness.” The actual number of people with overt hostility to Mormons is as small as it should be in a society that stresses religious tolerance.

As for the cult designation, there is an academic theological definition that arguably applies, as in a group deviating significantly from the orthodoxy of a faith yet retaining many of its basic precepts.

But most voices identifying the LDS church as a cult seek merely to insult it. The church’s defensiveness against this is as understandable as the Jewish community recoiling against anti-Semitism.

As Mormons properly seek to protect the reputation of their faith, many make an unreasonable demand as evidence of tolerance: They require a definition of Mormonism as just another form of Christianity. The prospects of an LDS president will only increase this pressure.

For those making that argument, the bad news is that it will not work. The good news is that it does not matter.

Definitions do not exist to make people feel better or worse about themselves. They exist to make things clear. Christianity, as a term, has a definition that embraces various denominations following the same Bible and only that Bible.

If a thoroughly well-meaning sect devised another entire holy book based on appearances by Jesus in Europe or Asia, adding beliefs that differ broadly on the status of Jesus and the details of the afterlife, are those people still followers of Jesus? Yes, they are. But are they Christians? Most would justifiably say they are not.

The LDS faith teaches of Jesus in North America, a story Mormons have every right to believe, along with the right to have that belief respected in a pluralistic society.

But they cannot expect that most Christians will view Mormonism as just another denomination, like Lutherans or Methodists. The differences are theologically sharp and unreconcilable according to biblical teaching.

But as Romney makes his push for the presidency, I consider his magnificent values and life story to be far closer to my values than the teachings ladled out in Barack Obama’s supposedly Christian church — that America-bashing cauldron of racial hatred lorded over by the poisonous Jeremiah Wright.

Ultimately, I would have no problem with a Jewish president, who would not even share my belief that Jesus is the son of God. Christian differences with Mormonism are smaller than that and ultimately play no part in my vote. As we practice proper deference toward one another’s beliefs, no one should be pressured to sacrifice clarity on the altar of empathy.

Conservative talk show host Mark Davis is on Twitter at @markdavis and may be contacted at markdavisshow@gmail.com.

Cumulus and the Rush Boycotttag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c0167665a12d4970b2012-05-09T10:02:37-05:002012-05-09T10:02:37-05:00I guarantee that my exit from the world of Cumulus will not spark some episode of Disgruntled Ex-Employee Syndrome, in which I obsess about how these people could ever live without me. I trust they will do fine. I know I will, and as I say often, more on that...Mark Davis

I guarantee that my exit from the world of Cumulus will not spark some episode of Disgruntled Ex-Employee Syndrome, in which I obsess about how these people could ever live without me. I trust they will do fine. I know I will, and as I say often, more on that soon.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t weigh in on what the company does in my industry, or individual things a CEO says that are just silly. In fact, I may be an ideal voice for comment on such things, because I can now share my thoughts without risk. What are they going to do, fire me?

The quote in question comes from this story, in which Cumulus CEO Lew Dickey willfully energizes every Rush Limbaugh enemy by claiming that his company lost a couple of million dollars in each of the first two quarters of 2012 because of the lame advertiser boycott launched against Rush by haters who sought to chase him from the air because of the Sandra Fluke incident.

By his own admission, Dickey says the losses amounted to about one percent of total revenue, a sliver of money that might have been lost due to a number of things. It is impossible to assign the loss of two million out of 245 million to a single cause, especially when the economy is still sputtering and your company is withstanding the the fits and starts of gobbling up all of the formerly ABC-owned radio giants?

Unless it’s on purpose.

The narrative grows that Cumulus just doesn’t like Limbaugh. Even though he is a massive ratings magnet on most of the bigger stations they have just bought, they have chosen to float the Mike Huckabee show directly opposite Rush, running it on various stations they own, perhaps waiting for Rush contracts to lapse on their other stations so they can boot Limbaugh and run their own product.

There is a certain business logic to that, but one thing makes it ridiculous: we’re talking about the Limbaugh show here.

Rush is that rarest of syndicated shows, in that many stations pay-- a lot-- to carry him. Most network shows are provided for free, taking up some of their affiliate stations’ commercial time to sell network spots to make money.

Rush does this as well, but also asks a hefty fee, which he is able to do because the minute a station runs him, it runs the biggest radio talk show in the history of the world.

I’ve never heard of one station saying “damn, that Limbaugh fee is killing us.” Of course, I had never heard anyone complain about paying me, either. Coincidence?

I am a tiny matter compared to what Cumulus does with Rush, but the Dickey comments baselessly assigning a tiny revenue loss to the inept Limbaugh “boycott” make no sense unless there is an underlying agenda.

Why would a CEO empower a small band of hopped-up activists who live to harass the highest-impact radio show in America, which is carried on his own stations?

Look at the numbers. Cumulus owns just 38 of the 600-plus stations that air Limbaugh. Many of them are iconic titans like WABC in New York, WLS in Chicago, WJR in Detroit and WBAP in D/FW.

The Dickeys would not have put Mike Huckabee in front of the M1 Abrams tank of the Limbaugh show if they did not envision it as a rival. Adding to the fantasy of the “boycott” impact, Lew Dickey suggested the protests “put some wind in the sails” of the Huckabee push for affiliates.

It may well be that a few people in cubicles in Atlanta got jazzed about offering stations Huckabee as a gentler, tamer alternative to Rush, but that is a million miles away from having a show that actually slows the Limbaugh ratings and revenue locomotive.

The Huckabee show may do just fine, and I hope it does. Gov. Huckabee is a wonderful man and a valuable voice. But the media coverage asking if that show would become a threat to Rush was just absurd. So is a CEO trashing the most noteworthy show carried on any of his stations.

Unless, again, there is a Master Plan. I confess to a certain empathy for Huckabee here, who should be able to enjoy the reward of his rollout and any ripples his show makes, without feeling the hot breath of corporate voices who clearly pant at the prospect of him knocking Rush from the mountaintop.

That will not be happening.

I can understand if inattentive souls fail to grasp that boycotts and trumped-up controversies only add to Rush’s impact and ultimately his revenue. But when people in the radio business don’t get that? Wow.

And, of course, I would have said every word of the above even if I were not filling in for Rush next Monday, May 14.

Cumulus and the Rush Boycotttag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a01348137fa93970c0167665a1254970b2012-05-09T10:02:06-05:002012-05-09T10:02:06-05:00I guarantee that my exit from the world of Cumulus will not spark some episode of Disgruntled Ex-Employee Syndrome, in which I obsess about how these people could ever live without me. I trust they will do fine. I know I will, and as I say often, more on that...Mark Davis

I guarantee that my exit from the world of Cumulus will not spark some episode of Disgruntled Ex-Employee Syndrome, in which I obsess about how these people could ever live without me. I trust they will do fine. I know I will, and as I say often, more on that soon.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t weigh in on what the company does in my industry, or individual things a CEO says that are just silly. In fact, I may be an ideal voice for comment on such things, because I can now share my thoughts without risk. What are they going to do, fire me?

The quote in question comes from this story, in which Cumulus CEO Lew Dickey willfully energizes every Rush Limbaugh enemy by claiming that his company lost a couple of million dollars in each of the first two quarters of 2012 because of the lame advertiser boycott launched against Rush by haters who sought to chase him from the air because of the Sandra Fluke incident.

By his own admission, Dickey says the losses amounted to about one percent of total revenue, a sliver of money that might have been lost due to a number of things. It is impossible to assign the loss of two million out of 245 million to a single cause, especially when the economy is still sputtering and your company is withstanding the the fits and starts of gobbling up all of the formerly ABC-owned radio giants?

Unless it’s on purpose.

The narrative grows that Cumulus just doesn’t like Limbaugh. Even though he is a massive ratings magnet on most of the bigger stations they have just bought, they have chosen to float the Mike Huckabee show directly opposite Rush, running it on various stations they own, perhaps waiting for Rush contracts to lapse on their other stations so they can boot Limbaugh and run their own product.

There is a certain business logic to that, but one thing makes it ridiculous: we’re talking about the Limbaugh show here.

Rush is that rarest of syndicated shows, in that many stations pay-- a lot-- to carry him. Most network shows are provided for free, taking up some of their affiliate stations’ commercial time to sell network spots to make money.

Rush does this as well, but also asks a hefty fee, which he is able to do because the minute a station runs him, it runs the biggest radio talk show in the history of the world.

I’ve never heard of one station saying “damn, that Limbaugh fee is killing us.” Of course, I had never heard anyone complain about paying me, either. Coincidence?

I am a tiny matter compared to what Cumulus does with Rush, but the Dickey comments baselessly assigning a tiny revenue loss to the inept Limbaugh “boycott” make no sense unless there is an underlying agenda.

Why would a CEO empower a small band of hopped-up activists who live to harass the highest-impact radio show in America, which is carried on his own stations?

Look at the numbers. Cumulus owns just 38 of the 600-plus stations that air Limbaugh. Many of them are iconic titans like WABC in New York, WLS in Chicago, WJR in Detroit and WBAP in D/FW.

The Dickeys would not have put Mike Huckabee in front of the M1 Abrams tank of the Limbaugh show if they did not envision it as a rival. Adding to the fantasy of the “boycott” impact, Lew Dickey suggested the protests “put some wind in the sails” of the Huckabee push for affiliates.

It may well be that a few people in cubicles in Atlanta got jazzed about offering stations Huckabee as a gentler, tamer alternative to Rush, but that is a million miles away from having a show that actually slows the Limbaugh ratings and revenue locomotive.

The Huckabee show may do just fine, and I hope it does. Gov. Huckabee is a wonderful man and a valuable voice. But the media coverage asking if that show would become a threat to Rush was just absurd. So is a CEO trashing the most noteworthy show carried on any of his stations.

Unless, again, there is a Master Plan. I confess to a certain empathy for Huckabee here, who should be able to enjoy the reward of his rollout and any ripples his show makes, without feeling the hot breath of corporate voices who clearly pant at the prospect of him knocking Rush from the mountaintop.

That will not be happening.

I can understand if inattentive souls fail to grasp that boycotts and trumped-up controversies only add to Rush’s impact and ultimately his revenue. But when people in the radio business don’t get that? Wow.

And, of course, I would have said every word of the above even if I were not filling in for Rush next Monday, May 14.